it? that blessed are the poor in spirit, the meek, and the peace-makers.' Will not these, and such like humbling propositions, delivered one day in seven only, in all the sober and beautiful simplicity of our church, with all the force of truth indeed, but with all its plainness also, be more than counterbalanced by the splendid and much more frequent recurrence of the nightly exhibition, whose precise object it too often is, not only to preach, but to personify doctrines in a diametrical and studied opposition to poverty of spirit, purity, meekness, forbearance, and forgiveness? Doctrines not simply expressed as those of the Sunday are, in the naked form of axioms, principles, and precepts, but realised, embodied, made alive, furnished with organs, clothed, decorated, brought into sprightly discourse, into interesting action; enforced with all the energy of passion, adorned with all the graces of language, and exhibited with every aid of emphatical delivery, and every attraction of appropriate gesture. To such a complicated temptation is it wise studiously to expose frail and erring creatures? Is not the conflict too severe? Is not the competition too unequal?

"Even in those plays in which the principles which false honour teaches are neither professedly inculcated nor vindicated; nay, where, moreover, the practices above alluded to, and especially the practice of duelling, are even reprobated in the progress of the piece; yet the hero who has been reprieved from sin during four acts by the sage remonstrance of some interfering friend, or the imperious power of beauty,- beauty, which to a stage hero is that restraining or impelling power which law, or conscience, or Scripture is to other men,-in the conclusion, where the intrigue is dexterously completed, when the passion is worked up to its acmé, and the valedictory scene is so near at hand that it becomes inconvenient to the poet that his impetuosity should be any longer restrained; seasonably winds up the drama by stabbing either his worst enemy or his best benefactor, or, as it still more frequently happens, himself; and not withstanding this criminal catastrophe, this same hero has been exhibited through all the preceding scenes, as such a combination of perfections; his behaviour has been so brave and so generous, (and bravery and generosity are two qualities which the world boldly stakes against both tables of the decalogue,) that the youthful spectator is too much tempted to consider as venial, the sudden and unpremeditated crime to which the unresisted impulse of the moment may have driven so accomplished a character. A little tame tag of morality, set to a few musical periods by the unimpassioned friend, is borne down, absorbed, lost, in the impetuous but too engaging character of the feeling, fiery hero: a character, the errors of which are now consummated by an act of murder, so affectingly managed, that censure is swallowed up in pity, and the murderer is absolved by the weeping auditory, who are ready, if not to justify the crime, yet to vindicate the criminal. The drowsy moral antidote at the close, slowly attempts to creep after the poison of the piece, but it creeps in vain; it can never expel that which it can never reach."

The above serious remonstrance applies to the best class of tragedies; and these not as connected with the flagrant evils of the stage, but in respect to the compositions themselves. But if in this best case, so bad is the best, what must the worst be? Nay, what must be such pieces as many of those which are represented even in the presence of maiden royalty, and which, of course, are among the most decent? We will not rake into the kennel of modern theatrical pieces to find exceptionable specimens; our knowledge is confined to the outlines and scraps which we see in the newspapers; and these, though inserted eulogistically, are sufficiently disgusting. In the "Times" newpaper, for instance, on the very day upon which we are writing (April 9), we read the following:—

"Her Majesty honoured Drury-lane theatre with a private visit last night. Her Majesty arrived a few minutes before seven o'clock. One of the most delightful morceaux of the evening was the admirable performance of the trio in the first act between Madam Abertazzi, Mr. Balfe, and Mr. Giubilei, when the lecherous old magistrate, admirably represented by the last named gentleman ["gentleman"!!!] is spurned by Annette, and threatened by her father."

Now was not this " a dainty dish" to set before a young and modest maiden Queen? We should shrink from defiling our pages, but in the exercise of duty, with even the silent mention of "a lecherCHRIST. OBSERV. No. 17. 20

ous old magistrate;" yet such is the corrupt taste of the circles into which our virgin Queen has unhappily been thrown, that she is to sit and see this gross abomination "admirably represented," with all the fascinations of music and acting; and to be told that such things are "delightful morceaux " for princely entertainment. Into a fine school of morality have the Melbourne cabinet introduced their artless unsuspecting mistress; when (perhaps quite unconscious of the matter -kept in ignorance of what every body else knows) she sits down to dinner with one old man, tried for corrupting his neighbour's wife, on her right hand; and another old man, convicted of it, under aggravated circumstances of guilt, on the other; and is then hurried off to see an actor, called "a gentleman," licentiously exhibit " an old lecherous magistrate" on the stage. The experience of all ages shows what will, too probably, be the end of these things; we know what use Chartists and Revolutionists are making of them; and we know how they are regarded by the virtuous and religious poor, who are strongly attached to our institutions in Church and State. It is no fault of our beloved and amiable Queen that she is young, and, being young, is of necessity inexperienced; but it will be the fault of the sound and moral part of the community, if they do not provide that her advisers, whom substantially, though not directly, the nation and not the sovereign especially a youthful sovereign-is responsible for, shall be men whose moral influence shall aid her in making her Court a pre-eminent pattern of morality, piety, and, we may add, of true English dignity, as contrasted with those frivolous pursuits which are peculiarly distasteful to British feeling. And in discharging the duty of prayer for our Sovereign, we cannot have more appropriate petitions than those in our Church Services; that "in all her thoughts, words, and works, she may ever seek the honour and glory of God;" and that he would "replenish her with the grace of His Holy Spirit; that she may always incline to His will, and walk in His ways; that she may be endued plenteously with heavenly gifts; and, finally, obtain everlasting felicity through Jesus Christ our Lord.".

ON MARRIAGES WITHIN THE PROHIBITED DEGREES.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

I SHOULD feel exceedingly obliged, if you would have the goodness to favour me with an opinion on the following subject:

In my parish live an aged couple that have been communicants many years. They are married within the prohibited degrees. The mon married his former wife's sister. I have not been long in the parish, and it is not long since I ascertained the fact. What is my duty, as a Christian minister, with respect to them? I beg you will have the kindness to notice this in the next Number of "The Christian Observer." A CONSTANT READER.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

A WIDOWER is desirous of marrying his deceased wife's sister: such a marriage is legally void in this country, from a modern Act of Par

liament; but what Scriptural or moral grounds (if any) are there for condemning it universally?

An answer from such of your correspondents as may have well considered this subject, would confer a real kindness on

We generally decline inserting papers on such questions as the above; nor are cases of conscience best discussed in the pages of a magazine; but having received the second as we were laying aside the first, we print them, as exemplifying the perplexities which clergymen often experience in their pastoral intercourse. A minister of Christ must not shrink from incurring responsibility when it is legitimately thrust upon him; but he will do well not to be forward in making himself an umpire where duty does not call him to do so. By the Act of 1835 (5 & 6 William IV. c. 54), the first of the above-mentioned marriages is now legally indissoluble; by the same act the second would be ab initio void; it being not only pronounced by the church to be "otherwise than God's law doth allow," which always rendered it ecclesiastically invalid, but being also now declared void by the secular law.

Till the above Act, the marriage alluded to by "A Constant Reader" was not "legally void." It was canonically void, and legally voidable; but not legally void. The secular jurisdiction took no account of the canonical objection of affinity or consanguinity; it was only the spiritual authority which could interfere; and till it did so, and annulled the marriage, the civil power recognized it; the children were accounted legitimate; nor, after the death of the parties, could its validity be questioned; for as the Ecclesiastical Court deals with the matter only for the spiritual discipline of the offenders, with a view to their souls' health, and as this cannot be promoted after they are dead, it has no posthumous jurisdiction.

The secular law justly pronounces certain marriages ab initio void; as in the case of one of the parties being already married, or being a lunatic; upon the principle that such marriages are not marriages; and that, therefore, in declaring them void, it does not put asunder what God has united. But the provision of Lord Hardwicke's marriage act (anno 1754,) which made a marriage void-were it a hundred years after-if either of the parties was under age when married, and the consent of parents or guardians was not specified, did interfere with the Divine law; and was very properly repealed a few years since, after it had inflicted a fearful extent of misery during the seventy years in which it was in force.

But till the Act of 1835 the law took no direct cognizance of the canonical impediments of consanguinity (relation by blood), or affinity (relation by marriage). These disabilities are grounded upon the Divine law, as declared in the 18th chapter of Leviticus, or, as considered deducible from it; and the State only bowed to the decision of the Church, giving civil validity to its decrees. The canons of Rome forbid the union of many varieties of degrees of kindred which are not forbidden, either directly or by implication, in the word of God; but the prohibition may be set aside for money, according to the venal system of dispensation of that corrupt communion. The statute of Henry VIII. rejected these money-making scruples; and declared that all persons may lawfully marry, but such as are forbidden by the Divine law. Thus cousins, even first cousins, are permitted, both by the Church and the State; whereas, the ancient canon law forbad such unions, even to the seventh generation; and the Church of

Rome still forbids them to the fourth generation, to which the fourth council of Lateran (in 1215) reduced the prohibition, though, as just mentioned, dispensations are procurable.

The anomalies in our marriage laws arose chiefly from the different manner in which the Church and the State regard that relation. The State views it as a civil contract; the Church as an ordinance of God. This distinction existed before the act of 1836, (6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 82). Thus Blackstone affirms :

"Our law considers marriage in no other light than as a civil contract. The holiness of the matrimonial state is left entirely to the ecclesiastical law; the temporal courts not having jurisdiction to consider unlawful marriage as a sin, but merely as a civil inconvenience. The punishment, therefore, or annulling, of incestuous or other unscriptural marriages, is the province of the spiritual courts, which act pro salute animæ. And taking it in this civil light, the law treats it as it does all other contracts; allowing it to be good and valid in all cases when the parties at the time of making it were, in the first place, willing to contract; secondly, able to contract; and lastly, actually did contract, in the proper forms and solemnities required by law."

The Act of 1836, it will thus appear, has not altered the law in respect of making that only civil which it before accounted spiritual; but it has altered "the forms and solemnities required by law." Those forms and solemnities were formerly confined in England, for the most part, to the ministrations of the Established Church; but the restriction did not extend to Scotland, or to the case of Jews and Quakers, or to marriages beyond the seas; so that it was not because the State considered the service of the Church necessarily essential to the validity of marriage, but because it accounted it proper and sufficient, that the solemnization was confined to the clergy and to the office in the prayer-book. It however sanctioned, so far as England is concerned, the religious rite, by accepting as marriage (with the exception of Jews, Quakers, &c.) only what the Church so accounts and solemnizes; whereas the present law makes this sanction of no moment whatever in any case.

We will now mention the provisions of the Act of 1835. It recites that marriages between persons within the prohibited degrees, are voidable only by sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court pronounced during the life-time of both parties; and that it is unreasonable for the offspring of marriages within the prohibited degrees of affinity to remain unsettled during so long a period; and that it is fitting that all marriages hereafter celebrated between persons within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity should be ipso facto void, and not merely voidable; and it enacted, with regard to marriages celebrated before the passing of the Act, that those between persons within the prohibited degrees of affinity shall not be annulled by the Ecclesiastical Court; but this provision does not apply to those within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity; but that after the passing of act, all marriages within the prohibited degrees, whether of affinity or consanguinity, shall be void.

The clashing between the law of the Church and the law of the State has confused the minds of many ill-judging persons. The State considered some marriages void which the Church accounted valid, there being no spiritual impediment; and the Church considers some marriages void which the State, before the Act of 1835, acknowledged, till the Church annulled them. In the case of a man who married his first wife's sister, the Bishop's court, after the death of the second wife-the man still living-was proceeding to annul the marriage and to declare the children illegitimate; but the Court of King's Bench interposed and granted a prohibition to this proceeding; though it allowed the spiritual court to punish the man for incest.

The way in which persons who married two sisters or two brothers defended their conduct, was, by arguing that the State did not invalidate their marriage; and that the Church has no Scriptural warrant to do so; and that being therefore satisfied in their own minds, the only question was whether they would run the risk of the marriage being annulled by the spiritual court, which was not likely to happen, unless questions of property arose, or family disagreements, to induce some person to proceed against them. The secular law, they said, found no fault; nor were the children inconvenienced. And with regard to the prohibitions of the Church, they said they had no scruple in asserting that they knew of no "lawful impediment" which rendered their union "otherwise than as God's word doth allow;" for that though the prohibitory table in the Prayer-book mentions the wife's sister and the husband's brother, yet that the former is not prohibited in the 18th chapter of Leviticus; nay, was sanctioned by the prohibition against taking the sister during the wife's life-time to vex her, thus forbidding the polygamy but not the succession ; and that the latter, though enumerated, was not a full prohibition, since, in case of there being no offspring by the first marriage, the brothers were to marry the same woman in succession. To this it is obvious to reply, that what is forbidden in the relationship of one sex is virtually forbidden in the other; the reasons, say the canonists and expositors, why a man should not marry his wife's sister being precisely the same as the reasons why a woman should not marry her husband's brother, which is expressly forbidden; though it is contended in reply, that the superiority of the man somewhat alters the bearing of the case; so that a man marrying two sisters, or his niece, which are not directly forbidden, is not of necessity to be accounted virtually forbidden because a woman may not marry two brothers, or a nephew his aunt. But surely this is an untenable argument, the relationship being the same. Again: the husband and wife being "one flesh," whatever relationship there is to one by consanguinity, there is to the other by affinity; so that the prohibition applies equally to both. So the Church determines; and the State by the Act of 1835 adopts that determination for the future; though it acknowledges some distinction, by legalising previous affinity marriages, yet leaving those of consanguinity only voidable, and not to be annulled but by the spiritual court.

REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS.

THE STATE IN ITS RELATIONS WITH THE CHURCH, The State in its Relations with the Church. By W. E. GLADSTONE, Esq., Student of Christchurch, and M.P. for Newark.

WHEN a good cause is assailed, it is of the utmost importance to its effective defence, that it should be placed on its true basis, exhibited in a right position, and maintained on just and legitimate principles. If ever it was necessary that these considerations should be rigorously kept in view, in reference to a great

public Institution, it is, assuredly, in their application to the present condition of the Church Establishment in this country. Beleaguered as she is by assailants at once powerful and sagacious; and protected, so far as she is committed to human guardianship, by friends who to a great extent are